So what is wrong with asking the question and trying to get a discussion going. Apparently I'm supposed to know the answer according to you guys since I read the books but in a continuity sense it doesn't make any sense. You guys are quick to point out that I make a mistake but then you have nothing to back up what you say. So why is Ghost conveniently missing all of a sudden. It makes no sense.

So what is wrong with asking the question and trying to get a discussion going. Apparently I'm supposed to know the answer according to you guys since I read the books but in a continuity sense it doesn't make any sense. You guys are quick to point out that I make a mistake but then you have nothing to back up what you say. So why is Ghost conveniently missing all of a sudden. It's stupid.

He's conveniently missing because that is what the writers need for their TV changes. If he was present, Jon's scenes would not have played out as they did.

Bran and Rickon don't retake Winterfell on the show because that would cause tons of problems with their storylines as well as those for Ramsay, Theon, and then Jon.

He's conveniently missing because that is what the writers need for their TV changes. If he was present, Jon's scenes would not have played out as they did.

Bran and Rickon don't retake Winterfell on the show because that would cause tons of problems with their storylines as well as those for Ramsay, Theon, and then Jon.

Yep, said it before .. probably will end up saying it again. The changes in season 2 are goofey, unnecessary and actually change character motivation.

reference Jon Snow not getting order from half hand... ghost doing the disappearing act etc... It seems more like they are trying to get past this point of the story (..and then there were like these 800 pages we don't want to bother with, so we made a couple episodes where the characters just mill about ...)

It's just a question I have been trying to figure out because we all know that Ned wasnt but why wouldn't Robert be one especially since he was fostered under Jon Arryn who is known to be extremely honorable and being a knight in itself is honorable.

It's just a question I have been trying to figure out because we all know that Ned wasnt but why wouldn't Robert be one especially since he was fostered under Jon Arryn who is known to be extremely honorable and being a knight in itself is honorable.

Great. Now you got me wracking my brain trying to remember if he was ever referred to as "Sir Robert." Its worse than having a melody in your head but unable to place it

Baratheon, Stark, Lannister, etc are Great Houses. The head of each would be the equivalent of a Duke (if they aren't Kings). Knights would report to their Lords. Lords to the Great Houses There's absolutely no reason Robert Baratheon or Ned Stark or Tywin Lannister would ever be a knight. Knights might or might not own lands, but they at the bottom of the nobility scale and many don't have an ounce of noble blood.

I don't lurk as much as I used to and I NEVER listen. Comes from being old and cynical.

Baratheon, Stark, Lannister, etc are Great Houses. The head of each would be the equivalent of a Duke (if they aren't Kings). Knights would report to their Lords. Lords to the Great Houses There's absolutely no reason Robert Baratheon or Ned Stark or Tywin Lannister would ever be a knight. Knights might or might not own lands, but they at the bottom of the nobility scale and many don't have an ounce of noble blood.

That's right. Robert was the lord of a great house, who had lesser lords, the heads of lesser houses, as his bannermen. Knights were a rung below the lessor lords. A knight was, one hoped, a chivalrous and honorable hired sword for the lord of one of the greater or lesser houses but a hired sword nonetheless.

In the book we are left with the clear impression the the Stark children are dead and its a while before we learn they are not. The initial shock rivaled Ned's death for me. But the way the show did it there is doubt that its really the starks from the outset, lessening the impact of the hanging children. Is that a misstep for the show, or was it the writer's intention to do it that way? I guess what I'm asking is, from the show's POV, are we supposed to believe that Bran and Rickard are dead? Or strongly suspect they are not?

That's right. Robert was the lord of a great house, who had lesser lords, the heads of lesser houses, as his bannermen. Knights were a rung below the lessor lords. A knight was, one hoped, a chivalrous and honorable hired sword for the lord of one of the greater or lesser houses but a hired sword nonetheless.

This isn't strictly true, though... in the south, knighthood is something aspired to by the sons of great houses as well -- Jaime Lannister and Loras Tyrell aren't anyone's hired swords. (Nor was Jaime one before he was in the kingsguard.)

That said, I don't recall ever hearing that Robert was knighted. They're aged up on the series, but in the books, both Robert and Ned are pretty young at the time of Robert's Rebellion, and when it was all over, Robert was king.

I have a question for those who watched season one before having read book one, but then got into the books and read book two before season two started: Is it a more enjoyable experience watching the show with the knowledge of the books in the back of your mind? Or did you enjoy watching season one more, without any idea what was around the corner? I have not read any of the books because I am loving the show so much and don't want to "spoil" it for myself.

I was considering reading book one and two during the long wait for season three, but was unsure I wanted to read ahead of where the series is. Right now I'm kind of just wanting to supplement the tv show with the greater detail and background that I'm sure the books provide. So what do you guys think?

I have a question for those who watched season one before having read book one, but then got into the books and read book two before season two started: Is it a more enjoyable experience watching the show with the knowledge of the books in the back of your mind? Or did you enjoy watching season one more, without any idea what was around the corner? I have not read any of the books because I am loving the show so much and don't want to "spoil" it for myself.

I was considering reading book one and two during the long wait for season three, but was unsure I wanted to read ahead of where the series is. Right now I'm kind of just wanting to supplement the tv show with the greater detail and background that I'm sure the books provide. So what do you guys think?

For me, its about how they bring the book to life. How the characters and locations are realized. The books are far deeper. I spent a decent part of last summer rereading all the books getting ready for the book 5. It was time well spent.

This isn't strictly true, though... in the south, knighthood is something aspired to by the sons of great houses as well -- Jaime Lannister and Loras Tyrell aren't anyone's hired swords. (Nor was Jaime one before he was in the kingsguard.)

The A Song of Ice and Fire books and the Game of Thrones TV series are based on the feudal concept of fealty to one's lord. It starts with serfs on farms, who owe fealty to their lord. That lord owes fealty to his lord and so on up the line to the king. All have a duty to fight for their lords in war. Thus, Knight's are "hired swords" in the sense that they have pledged fealty to their liege lords, which includes fighting for them in wartime.

I have a question for those who watched season one before having read book one, but then got into the books and read book two before season two started: Is it a more enjoyable experience watching the show with the knowledge of the books in the back of your mind? Or did you enjoy watching season one more, without any idea what was around the corner? I have not read any of the books because I am loving the show so much and don't want to "spoil" it for myself.

I was considering reading book one and two during the long wait for season three, but was unsure I wanted to read ahead of where the series is. Right now I'm kind of just wanting to supplement the tv show with the greater detail and background that I'm sure the books provide. So what do you guys think?

I had never heard of GoT before the show started, and had the same conflict you're having. What finally settled it for me was the fact that it could be 5+ years for the show to catch up. I read the books because I wanted to have some idea how the story would end.(I was naive) What I've found is it has made it easier to follow the series knowing the characters and their relationships. making it easier to focus on the story. And their are enough changes from the source to still surprise me, so I'm glad I did it this way. A word of warning though: The first two books are a MUCH tighter narrative and a lot more focused. While its true the later books are much deeper than a screen adaption could ever be, they also ramble and intoduce a lot of characters and plotlines that so far seem to go nowheres. There are a lot of WTF moments reading them, but I'm still enjoying the overall story.

Baratheon, Stark, Lannister, etc are Great Houses. The head of each would be the equivalent of a Duke (if they aren't Kings). Knights would report to their Lords. Lords to the Great Houses There's absolutely no reason Robert Baratheon or Ned Stark or Tywin Lannister would ever be a knight. Knights might or might not own lands, but they at the bottom of the nobility scale and many don't have an ounce of noble blood.

Rhaeghar was a knight so it doesn't matter if your the lord of a great house since he was going to be overlord to all and still chose knighthood. Albeit because he read it in a book that he should pursue martial activities. I know why Ned is not a knight and that is because he keeps to the old ways and the aspect of religion/the seven plays a big part. Robert on the other hand being from the south and being fostered in The Vale who are known for their knights just has me curious.

Rhaeghar was a knight so it doesn't matter if your the lord of a great house since he was going to be overlord to all and still chose knighthood. Albeit because he read it in a book that he should pursue martial activities. I know why Ned is not a knight and that is because he keeps to the old ways and the aspect of religion/the seven plays a big part. Robert on the other hand being from the south and being fostered in The Vale who are known for their knights just has me curious.

That's a good point and probably should be addressed to GRRM in one of his forums. It's been years since I've touched the books, but I can't recall any explanation. gwsat's right about feudal society in general, however, even in our history, there were orders of knighthood that nobility were a part of, some of which were international (Order of the Garter, Templars, Hospitalers, etc). There was a path for selection, including training, ritual, vigil and swearing in. I'm sure there is something equivalent in Westeros. Younger sons of nobiility and branching off family tree members who accepted a soldier's life/career entered the knighthood. I doubt high ranking nobility ever had to...if they wanted a knight's title, it was probably given to them.

Logically Westeros should follow suit, but perhaps there was a reason for some high nobility to enter an order of knighthood. Jaime was a Kingsguard...that might be it. Rheagar as a prince, might have wanted to for some reason, but he would still have commanded thousands of knights of any banner before the revolution.

I don't lurk as much as I used to and I NEVER listen. Comes from being old and cynical.

That's a good point and probably should be addressed to GRRM in one of his forums. It's been years since I've touched the books, but I can't recall any explanation. gwsat's right about feudal society in general, however, even in our history, there were orders of knighthood that nobility were a part of, some of which were international (Order of the Garter, Templars, Hospitalers, etc). There was a path for selection, including training, ritual, vigil and swearing in. I'm sure there is something equivalent in Westeros. Younger sons of nobiility and branching off family tree members who accepted a soldier's life/career entered the knighthood. I doubt high ranking nobility ever had to...if they wanted a knight's title, it was probably given to them.

Logically Westeros should follow suit, but perhaps there was a reason for some high nobility to enter an order of knighthood. Jaime was a Kingsguard...that might be it. Rheagar as a prince, might have wanted to for some reason, but he would still have commanded thousands of knights of any banner before the revolution.

I think part of becoming a knight is that you must perform a great deed. For instance Bronn is Ser Bronn of the Blackwater because of his part in the battle of the Blackwater. Robert never had a chance to perform his great deed until he performed "the deed" that made him king. It's possible that he was knighted before the war and that's all I'm curious about. I remember reading that Tywin always wanted his daughter to be a queen and his son to be a knight. Also I think many noble boys become squires which is a very important job and right of passage. When they prove themselves they become knights because they can't stay squires their whole lives. I think older squires are looked down upon and sometimes mocked because there must be a reason for them still being squires at such an advanced age.

Knighthoods are also offered as rewards sometimes. If you remember "Harry the Heir" was given a knighthood in a Melee specifically for squires and the winner of which would be granted a knighthood. You also have Ser Kevan Lannister who is a younger son. I can't remember if Garlan Tyrell is a knight but we all know his younger brother is and I believe his older brother Willas has a Ser in front of his name and he's an oldest son. I don't think Oberyn Martell is a knight. Also remember that Brandon Stark (Ned's bro) had a squire who was part of Eddard's group of 7.

A good family to look at in this situation would be the Royce's because it seems that the whole lot of them are knighted. It seems like every noble family who has a son in The Vale tho is Knighted. Remember Ser Hugh of the Vale who was given a knighthood just for being Jon Arryns squire and he was given a knighthood just because the old man died. GRRM always seems to make it a point to tell us how and why each character is made a knight so that must hold some importance or why mention it.

Another point i can think of is when Jon Connington says save your other 6 kingsguard positions for the younger sons of high lords because it will help your cause when he is speaking to young Aegon after he names Ser Rolly Duckfield to his kingsguard. Remember Jon Con didnt like the fact that he had done that because Ser Rolly is a nobody in the eyes of the rest of the realm.

Also any knight can make another knight. Jon Con made Ser Rolly. Rhaegar ironically made Ser Gregor Clegane a knight and then he "killed" his son/prince/heir/prince that was promised/king. The kingsguard knights spent the entire day following the battle of the Blackwater knighting everyone who partook in the battle. It seems under Joffrey's reign that being a knight is startling to hold less of a meaning as it once did. Lord Beric Dondarian is also knighting everyone who joins the brotherhood if you remember he Knighted Gendry of the Hollow Hill when he joined. Seems pretty easy these days every where to become a knight. Arstan Whitebeard even turned down a knighthood.

I think Knighthoods are just given out for loyalty and they are like samarai. Bronn was given a lordship for his bravery at Blackwater. I am rereading some of this and, for example, Lord Dondarion's Bortherhood without Banners have all been knighted and they are much lesser souls. So I don't think knighthood is very high on the ladder, it just raises you up over civilian and requires a lot of swearing of fealty.

"Nowadays, you can just click a button and buy a book, meet your spouse or ruin someone's life. Sometimes those last two are the same thing." John Oliver.

It's not like knighthood was all that glamorous. Hedge knights seemed to live a difficult life, barely scraping by, earning their keep by serving minor lords or nobles with no attached household knights. You got a glimpse of it in the Dunk and Egg tales.